On 2002-04-19 3:03, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:
>> There is no need to constrain the literal to the lexical space
>> of xsd:integer if it is only going to be interpreted as a literal
>> string!
>>
>> The *only* reason for even mentioning xsd:integer is to achieve,
>> at *some* level of interpretation, the value *ten*.
>
> Well, not everyone agrees with you on that.
Well, then let's hear from "everyone". I only hear your
interpretation.
>> If that doesn't work in the MT in any way, then toss the inline
>> idiom as a datatyping idiom and be done with it.
>
> It works, but it doesnt work in the way that you want it to. But what
> if someone WANTS a property value to be a string? You saying that
> should be *illegal* in RDF???
No, I'm simply saying then that they shouldn't assert a datatype,
or at most, only assert something like xsd:string.
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com